McAuliffe veto's "Tim Tebow" bill

[sixcat 2,919]

Interesting!  I support our governor in his decision.  What say you?

 

 

Governor McAuliffe Vetoes Bills on Home-Schooled Students Participating in Interscholastic Competitions

 

RICHMOND – Governor Terry McAuliffe today vetoed two bills related to students whom receive home instruction’s ability to participate in interscholastic programs. They are HB131 and SB612. The Governor sent the letter below to the General Assembly detailing his reasons for vetoing both bills:

 

“Pursuant to Article V, Section 6, of the Constitution of Virginia, I veto House Bill 131/Senate Bill 612, which prohibits public schools from joining any organization governing interscholastic programs that does not allow home-schooled students to participate.

 

“More than 300 public schools belong to the Virginia High School League (VHSL), an organization through which member schools have regulated interscholastic competition since 1913. Each year over 200,000 public school students, who satisfy the VHSL’s 13 individual eligibility requirements, participate in one or more of the league’s 27 sports and 11 academic activities.

 

“Allowing home-schooled students to participate in interscholastic competitions would disrupt the level playing field Virginia’s public schools have developed over the past century. For example, VHSL rules state that a student must pass five subjects or the equivalent in the previous semester, and be enrolled in five subjects or the equivalent offered for credit toward graduation, in order to participate in the league’s events. While the bill provides that home-schooled students must demonstrate evidence of progress in order to participate in interscholastic activities, the unique nature of their educational situation precludes conformity to the same standards.

 

“Virginia’s public schools provide a complete package of scholastic offerings and access to extracurricular activities. Participation in athletic and academic competitions is a privilege for students who satisfy eligibility requirements.  Opening participation in those competitions to individuals who are not required to satisfy the same criteria upends Virginia’s extracurricular framework and codifies academic inequality in interscholastic competition.

 

“Accordingly, I veto this bill.â€

[Bearcat Bob 491]

I cannot stand Terry McAuliffe but I am glad he vetoed this bill. 

[Deleted Account 5,203]

I can't reconcile the desired result (to preclude home-schooled children from public school sports) with the obvious (that family home-schooling pays the same taxes in to support public schools that any public school family does).

[Bearcat Bob 491]

For a public school child to participate in sports, there are rigid  requirements.  The public school child has to get up every morning, attend a set school schedule, abide by a standard set of behavioral rules, maintain a GPA as determined by his teachers (not his mom/dad), interact with a student body in an appropriate manner, etc.  If he is sick in the a.m. and misses school. he cannot participate that day, even if he feels better in the p.m.  Not so with home schoolers.  Public school sports participation carries many requirements for the student athlete that can be circumvented by the home schooled student. 

 

Additionally, cannot you not see the potential abuses?  Residency requirements may as well be thrown out as we know them. 

 

The taxes argument does not hold water, IMHO.  I also pay taxes on the buses that carry the kids to school but that does not mean that me and the family can take one Saturday to a Nationals' game.  That is only one example.  There are MANY things I pay taxes for of which I cannot use for personal use. 

 

And quite honestly, if the public school is not adequate to educate your child and you chose to do so yourself, why are the public school sports programs adequate?  I say go start your own travel team and be happy. Or attend a private school. 

[West12aaa 99]

Docs excuse allows you to play that day if sick , I've done it and got it approved beforehand.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

For a public school child to participate in sports, there are rigid requirements. The public school child has to get up every morning, attend a set school schedule, abide by a standard set of behavioral rules, maintain a GPA as determined by his teachers (not his mom/dad), interact with a student body in an appropriate manner, etc. If he is sick in the a.m. and misses school. he cannot participate that day, even if he feels better in the p.m. Not so with home schoolers. Public school sports participation carries many requirements for the student athlete that can be circumvented by the home schooled student.

 

Additionally, cannot you not see the potential abuses? Residency requirements may as well be thrown out as we know them.

 

The taxes argument does not hold water, IMHO. I also pay taxes on the buses that carry the kids to school but that does not mean that me and the family can take one Saturday to a Nationals' game. That is only one example. There are MANY things I pay taxes for of which I cannot use for personal use.

 

And quite honestly, if the public school is not adequate to educate your child and you chose to do so yourself, why are the public school sports programs adequate? I say go start your own travel team and be happy. Or attend a private school.

(1) So long as the child is maintaining as rigorous an academic schedule as his or her peers, and is maintaining the grade point average necessary to participate in athletics, do you not run into due process concerns? I'm not so confident one can avoid them. There are many home school students who abuse the system, but there are many thay adhere to a rigorous schedule that make public school look like the cakewalk it is. And there's certainly nothing stopping public school children from walking around in a daze for 8 hours/day.

 

(2) I see the potential abuses. There are many. It's the reason I support the end result of vetoing the Tebow bill, so don't misunderstand me. It's just much more complex than dropping the hammer. Many compelling nuances on the other side.

 

(3) Your rebuttal on taxes is based on two flawed assumptions. One, the buses are solely for the use of children. Two, the buses are not entitled to take the children anywhere (Nationals game) but school-sponsored activities.

 

Again, I support the prohibition, but it's difficult to reconcile it with legality. And naturally, I don't trust Democrats like McAuliffe to do that.

[sixcat 2,919]

Compelling arguments both by Bearcat Bob and UVAO! The community where I live, for whatever reason, has a tremendous home-school population.  Much more than anyone would imagine. According to homeschoolers.org, Carroll County has 124, Grayson has 77 and Galax has 23 with roughly three-quarters filing as "religious exemption".  That would constitute roughly 11% of the school aged population in the combined area.

 

This area has several home-school basketball teams, which abide by NO rules, I can assure you.  Several Carroll, Galax and Grayson players have participated on both teams for the past decade.  I am not completely sure what the rules are for participation but I assume VHSL would not be happy with several kids competing within their ranks also competing within the ranks of the Virginia Home School Athletic Association at the same time.  One basketball player at Galax got into some trouble at school when his picture was in the local paper while playing in a VHSAA tournament the weekend before the VHSL state tournament.

[sixcat 2,919]

I can't reconcile the desired result (to preclude home-schooled children from public school sports) with the obvious (that family home-schooling pays the same taxes in to support public schools that any public school family does).

Honest question UVAO.  How would the same concept be applied to classroom logic from a legal perspective?  Let's say a home-school parent wants to use the Biology lab for an experiment for the home-school kid.  Should they be allowed to utilize the lab? 

[Bearcat Bob 491]

School bus use was just one example.  However, I recently attended a community, non-school related, street festival where school buses where used to transport folks from the off site parking area to the town street festival. 

 

I am very leery of the home schooled GPA.  If my dad had been in charge of my GPA, instead of my teachers, I would have struggled.  He felt perfection was the only acceptable grade!  Conversely, it seems that "mom/dad" could make sure that my home school GPA was stellar.  Admittedly, I do not know the exact procedure for home schooled grading but I can image that it would be easier to fudge those grades than it would be in a public school.

 

As a tax payer, I get the thought that the school athletic programs should be available to all tax payer's children.  But, the school does not have to offer athletics.  There are many required academic courses required but not a single athletic program is mandated (except Title IX issues which is another ball of wax totally).  Participation in school athletics is a privilege of which are attached many requirements. 

 

Just my opinions on the matter.  I can see the other side...I just do not agree with it.

[RichlandsAlum 678]

Bending this issue a bit, what if home schooled students wanted to eat lunch in the public school cafeteria?  Would the framework and associated variables of that discussion be substantially different?

 

(And I'm not offering answers or insight to those questions myself.  I'm just curious about how far the "compartmentalization" of tax-funded services can go, both in a legal and practical sense.)

[RichlandsAlum 678]

Oh, and let me fling another wrench at the gear works while I'm thinking about it.....

 

What if the compulsory school attendance laws were rescinded (or at least substantially amended)?   Wouldn't that resolve some of the contractual expectations associated with this particular public service?

[1inStripes 932]

I wonder if home schooled kids are counted toward VHSL enrollments now since they are still a part of the state and therefore the school system in which they reside.  

[RichlandsAlum 678]

I wonder if home schooled kids are counted toward VHSL enrollments now since they are still a part of the state and therefore the school system in which they reside.  

 

VHSL enrollments are based on actual attendance ("Average Daily Membership" is the precise terminology), which means kids are only counted if they are actually enrolled and present at a particular school.

 

The extent to which school systems in Virginia have to account for home schooled kids seems pretty nebulous.  While I think parents are required to file a notice of intent, the degree to which individual school systems manage that data does not appear to be standardized.  For example, right now in Bedford County approximately 20% of the school aged population is not accounted for in the enrollment of the public schools.  But when pressed about this fact, the County's central office personnel don't seem to be able to account for the location of these couple of thousand kids nor do they seem terribly concerned about it.  From a taxpayer perspective, I personally find that to be aggravating to say the least.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

I have meant to make a meaningful reply to the comments since my last post, but I have been very pressed for time.

 

Honest question UVAO.  How would the same concept be applied to classroom logic from a legal perspective?  Let's say a home-school parent wants to use the Biology lab for an experiment for the home-school kid.  Should they be allowed to utilize the lab? 

 

 

From a practical perspective, the school should be willing to loan equipment to a parent who is utilizing it for the good of a home-schooled child.  It is, after all, purchased with taxpayer monies or grants to be used for the public good.  Realistically, this almost never happens, mainly because I do believe that a teacher holds students to a higher standard than do parents in the majority of instances.  Further, in the rare instances it does, I doubt there is disagreement between school and parents.  Some parents can purchase their own.  Some schools reach agreements with parents.  For the schools who can't agree, the parents don't push the issue enough to make a case of it.

 

Legally, one could make the argument that the equipment is provided for the students in a particular school district, and being a home-schooled child in that district, the child would have the right to make use of the equipment.  The counter is more of a school-specific interpretation.

 

 

Bending this issue a bit, what if home schooled students wanted to eat lunch in the public school cafeteria?  Would the framework and associated variables of that discussion be substantially different?

 

(And I'm not offering answers or insight to those questions myself.  I'm just curious about how far the "compartmentalization" of tax-funded services can go, both in a legal and practical sense.)

 

 

I wouldn't change the framework at all, honestly.  But from a practical perspective, this situation is even more unlikely than the one above.  School lunches are cheap, but not free (in most jurisdictions), if the student meets the financial guidelines.  Parents end up spending more in money in gas than the food they would receive, and generally, parents would have the food in their house.  

 

There's no legal framework on this, as there usually isn't on issues that aren't fiscally beneficial to press.  But there are arguments each way.  The meals are subsidized, versus the meals are intended for use of those in public school.